Jami A. Kouchaki M. & Gino F. (2021) - I Own So I Help Out

I Own, So I Help Out: How Psychological
Ownership Increases Prosocial Behavior
ATA JAMI
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/47/5/698/5873875 by 81695661, OUP on 27 January 2021

MARYAM KOUCHAKI
FRANCESCA GINO
This article explores the consequences of psychological ownership going beyond

the specific relationship with the possession to guide behavior in unrelated situa-
tions. Across seven studies, we find that psychological ownership leads to a boost
in self-esteem, which encourages individuals to be more altruistic. In addition, we
show that the effect of psychological ownership on prosocial behavior is not driven
by self-efficacy, perceived power, reciprocity, feeling well-off, or affect. Examining
materialism and mine-me sensitivity as individual differences moderating the ef-
fect of psychological ownership on prosocial behavior, we find that the effect does
not hold for individuals low on materialism or mine-me sensitivity. Finally, we at-
tenuate the effect of psychological ownership on prosocial tendencies by making
the negative attributes of one’s possessions relevant.
Keywords: psychological ownership, prosocial behavior, altruism, possessions,

self-esteem, materialism, mine-me sensitivity
O wnership is an important facet of people’s lives:

daily, each of us interacts with various material and
immaterial objects that we own. Psychological ownership,
ownership bonds individuals to their possessions, helps
them define and present themselves with their possessions,
and makes them see possessions as a part of their identity
or “the state in which individuals feel as though the target (Belk 1988; Pierce et al. 2003; Weiss and Johar 2016). It
of ownership or a piece of that target is ‘theirs’” (Pierce, also shapes people’s judgments of themselves and their
Kostova, and Dirks 2003, 86), is a cognitive-affective con- possessions and influences their behavior toward their pos-
struct reflecting a person’s awareness, thoughts, and beliefs sessions (Dommer and Swaminathan 2013; Kirk, Peck, and
about what she owns (Pierce et al. 2003). Psychological Swain 2018; Morewedge et al. 2009; Shu and Peck 2011;
Weiss and Johar 2013, 2016). However, how does
Ata Jami (ata.jami@kellogg.northwestern.edu) is a research assistant
experiencing psychological ownership shape consumer be-
professor of marketing at the Kellogg School of Management, havior beyond their behaviors toward the owned entities?
Northwestern University, 2211 Campus Drive, Evanston, IL 60208, USA. The current research aims to shed light on this question by
Maryam Kouchaki (m-kouchaki@kellogg.northwestern.edu) is an associ- examining the relationship between psychological owner-
ate professor of management and organization at the Kellogg School of
Management, Northwestern University, 2211 Campus Drive, Evanston, IL ship and prosocial behavior.
60208, USA. Francesca Gino (fgino@hbs.edu) is the Tandon Family Religious and other writings often advise people against
Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School, Baker making possessions prominent in their lives. Buddhism, for
Library 447, Soldiers Field Road, Boston, MA 02163, USA. Please ad- example, asserts that rejecting the material world is the key
dress correspondence to Ata Jami. The authors appreciate the constructive
feedback provided by the editor, associate editor, and reviewers. to salvation (Belk 1983). Moreover, research has argued
Supplementary materials are included in the web appendix accompanying that “the individual orientation of material values conflicts
the online version of this article. with collective-oriented values” (Burroughs and
Editors: Gita V. Johar and Margaret C. Campbell Rindfleisch 2002, 348) and that an overemphasis on pos-
sessions and acquisition are “inherently incompatible with
Associate Editor: Cait Lamberton sharing and giving to others” (Richins and Dawson 1992,
Advance Access publication July 20, 2020
308). Feelings of ownership can also increase territoriality
C The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. All rights reserved.
V
For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com Vol. 47 2021
DOI: 10.1093/jcr/ucaa040
698
JAMI, KOUCHAKI, AND GINO 699
through a sense of loss and negative affect (Baer and psychological states and consequences. This research also
Brown 2012; Kirk et al. 2018). However, we propose that builds a connection between two important bodies of con-
experiencing psychological ownership does not hinder pro- sumer research, psychological ownership and prosocial be-
social behavior but rather increases altruism by increasing havior. From a practical perspective, our findings suggest
individuals’ state self-esteem. that activating psychological ownership can help encour-
Possessions help individuals build, affirm, and commu- age contributions to prosocial causes. Indeed, organizations
nicate their identity and consequently gain self-esteem can enhance psychological ownership in different ways.
(Allport 1937; Richins 2002). Moreover, as a social con- For instance, consumers experience psychological owner-
struct that differentiates between an owner and nonowners, ship when they customize goods and/or services they ac-
ownership gives exclusive rights to the owner over the quire (Pierce and Peck 2018). Retailers can also increase

owned entity. In general, possessions influence their own- feelings of ownership by encouraging consumers to touch
ers’ relational value and social position (Dittmar 1992). products (Peck and Shu 2009). We propose that such
Self-esteem, according to sociometer theory, is an internal occurrences, by potentially inducing a sense of psychologi-
monitor of the degree to which one is valued as a relational cal ownership in consumers, can benefit society as a whole.
partner (Leary and Baumeister 2000). Given the value of In sum, we contribute to the understanding of possessions,
ownership in regulating social connections, experiencing their symbolic meanings, and their potential role in helping
psychological ownership should enhance individuals’ self- people benefit others.
esteem. Self-esteem theories predict that a boost to one’s We first review the literature on psychological owner-
self-esteem increases prosocial behavior (Baumeister, ship and its connections with self-esteem and prosocial be-
1998; Greenberg 2008; Leary 2005; Leary and Baumeister havior. We then report seven studies testing our proposed
2000). The desire for self-esteem is a core human motiva- effect of ownership on prosocial behavior and its underly-
tion, and individuals often behave in ways to protect, main- ing mechanism. We examine materialism, mine-me sensi-
tain, and enhance their self-esteem (Allport, 1937; James tivity, and negative attributes of possessions as three
1890; Leary and Baumeister 2000). As such, enhanced factors moderating the effect of ownership on prosocial be-
self-esteem motivates people to maintain it, which can be havior. We conclude by discussing theoretical and practical
done through prosocial behavior. Thus, we predict that implications, as well as directions for future research.
people are more likely to engage in prosocial behavior
when they experience psychological ownership and that
enhanced self-esteem explains this relationship. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The boundaries of our proposed effect provide further Psychological Ownership
support for our theorization. Although we expect the effect
of ownership on prosocial behavior to apply for most indi- Ownership has been examined in a wide range of disci-
viduals, we propose the effect to attenuate among individu- plines, from anthropology, sociology, psychology, and
als whose identity and social standing are less tied to their child development to consumer behavior and management.
possessions. In particular, materialism (Richins and Research on the state of psychological ownership (i.e.,
Dawson 1992) and mine-me sensitivity (Weiss and Johar mine-ness) has focused primarily on its roots, how people
2013) highlight the connections between one’s sense of experience it, and the owner’s relationship to the owned
self and one’s material possessions. Ownership does not entity to make predictions about their emotions, cognitions,
enhance self-esteem for those low on materialism and and behaviors toward the entity (Peck and Shu 2018;
mine-me sensitivity because they are less likely to rely on Pierce et al. 2003; Pierce and Jussila 2011).
their possessions to judge their success or to define them- We adopt Pierce et al.’s (2003) definition of psychologi-
selves. Thus, we expect a moderation by materialism and cal ownership as possessive feelings toward material and
mine-me sensitivity as individual differences. Furthermore, immaterial objects manifesting in expressions such as my,
we do not expect all possessions to significantly boost indi- mine, and our. This definition allows for potential targets
viduals’ self-esteem. In particular, people would not expe- of ownership to range from a car or a simple mug to an
rience a boost in self-esteem when they consider and idea, an organization, a pet, or even a person (e.g., friends
reflect on negative attributes of their possessions. As a re- or family). The target may be small (e.g., a preferred seat
sult, the experience of psychological ownership, while in the living room or a favorite television program) or large
making the negative attributes of a possession more rele- (e.g., an entire house or a collections of paintings). We fo-
vant, attenuates the effect of ownership on self-esteem and cus on psychological ownership as the result of consider-
prosocial behavior. ation and deliberation on one’s possession(s).
This article makes important contributions to both the- Psychological ownership has been shown to influence an
ory and practice. It contributes to an understanding of own- individual’s attitudes, values, and behaviors toward the tar-
ership by broadening its application beyond behaviors get entity (Peck and Shu 2018). Research has identified
directed toward the target of ownership to accompanying many positive consequences of psychological ownership
700 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
directed at the target entity (Pierce et al. 2003; Pierce and in a group’s hierarchy based on who is or is not allowed to
Peck 2018). For instance, studies of the endowment effect use their toys (Dittmar 1992). “Possessions are viewed as
(or “mere ownership effect,” Beggan 1992) demonstrate signs of relationships, but also as pawns in the game which
that individuals’ appraisals of an object’s worth vary serve to regulate, undermine, or cement connections with
depending on ownership, such that people believe that an others,” writes Dittmar (1992, 52). Moreover, people are
object is worth more if they think they own it (Beggan concerned about and aware of the impact of the meanings
1992; Dommer and Swaminathan 2013; Morewedge et al. of their possessions to their social position and use posses-
2009; Peck and Shu 2009). Shu and Peck (2011) find that sions as social-material locators (Dittmar 1992).
feelings of ownership of an object lead to an emotional at- Self-esteem is heavily dependent on perceptions of how
tachment to that object—specifically, a positive affective one is regarded and valued by others. Scholars have argued

reaction. Weiss and Johar (2013) find that, after being ran- that self-esteem has been developed across time as an inter-
domly assigned ownership of a product, consumers judge nal meter to monitor one’s relational value (i.e., socio-
product traits such as creativity as more consistent with meter) in the same way that pain, hunger, and satiety
their own traits if they own the product but see it as incon- monitor one’s physical health and sustenance (Leary and
sistent with their own traits if they do not own it. Baumeister 2000). Given the link between possessions, so-
Moreover, feelings of ownership toward an entity have cial standing, and acceptability, we believe that psycholog-
been found to increase personal sacrifice and the assump- ical ownership has direct implications for individuals’ self-
tion of risk on behalf of the entity, as well as greater re- esteem. Both the personal and social aspects of ownership
sponsibility for and stewardship of that target entity (Van suggest a positive link between psychological ownership
Dyne and Pierce 2004). Owners prefer and like their and self-esteem.
objects, sometimes instantly, more than similar objects Research has recognized and differentiated between trait
(Beggan 1992). and state self-esteem (Heatherton and Polivy 1991). Trait
Though insightful, this body of research has largely self-esteem refers to an average level of judgments about
overlooked the consequences of psychological ownership the self’s value or worth, which is assessed with items such
on cognitions and behaviors beyond those directed toward as “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.” State self-
the owned entity, and scholars have called for further re- esteem refers to how one evaluates oneself in the moment,
search in this domain (Peck and Luangrath 2018). such as “Right now, I am satisfied with myself.” One’s im-
mediate circumstances can fluctuate state self-esteem
Psychological Ownership, Self-Esteem, and around its trait level and these fluctuations are strongly
Prosocial Behavior linked to cognition, motivation, and behavior (Crocker and
Wolfe 2001). Given our interest in the effects of psycho-
Psychological ownership provides people with an inner logical ownership as a result of consideration and/or delib-
motive to define their self-identity using what they own eration about one’s possessions, we focus on the effects of
(Mead 1934; Pierce and Peck 2018). Allport (1937) wrote psychological ownership on state self-esteem.
that “the process of gaining an identity, and in so doing Having established a link between psychological owner-
gaining self-esteem, progresses from infancy by extending ship and enhanced self-esteem, we turn to the link between
self via a continuously expanding set of things regarded as self-esteem and prosociality. Research has shown a posi-
one’s own” (Belk 1988, 141). People’s desire for material tive correlation between self-esteem and prosocial behavior
possessions is driven by “the benefits these goods pro- and a negative correlation with antisocial behavior
vide—an increase in comfort or pleasure, the ability to ac- (Aronson and Osherow 1980; Graf 1971; Liang et al.
complish new tasks, the esteem of others when they regard 2016). In addition, experimental research finds a link be-
what we own” (Richins 2002, 85). Possessions play an im- tween enhanced self-esteem and moral behavior. For ex-
portant role in the development and communication of a ample, in one study, situationally enhancing participants’
personal identity; through that, they engender a positive in- self-esteem via feedback on a personality test reduced their
fluence on sense of esteem (Richins 2002). Empirical find- intentions for corrupt behavior (Liang et al. 2016).
ings also provide support for the link between possessions Early theorists in psychology recognized that the desire
and self-esteem (Ferraro, Escalas, and Bettman 2011; for self-esteem is a core motivation that guides human be-
Jackson 1979). Jackson (1979) show that individuals’ self- havior (Adler 1930; Allport 1937; James 1890). A large
esteem is positively correlated with the ratio of the material body of work shows that people often act to protect, main-
goods they own over the goods they need. tain, and enhance their self-esteem (Baumeister 1998;
Another compelling argument for the relationship be- Greenberg 2008; Leary 2005; Leary and Baumeister 2000).
tween ownership and self-esteem comes from the social as- Self-esteem theories predict that a boost to one’s self-
pect of ownership. Individuals regulate their social esteem increases prosocial behavior. The central notion of
relationships by using their possessions (Dittmar 1992). these theories is that individuals’ actions and attitudes are
For example, children use their toys to adjust their position strongly affected by a tendency to maintain a positive state
with respect to evaluations of oneself. Jones (1973, 186) show that psychological ownership can trigger changes in
writes that “an individual has a need to enhance his self- one’s psychological state that go beyond the specific rela-
evaluation and to increase, maintain, or confirm his feel- tionship with the possession to guide behavior in unrelated
ings of personal satisfaction, worth, and effectiveness . . . situations.
Furthermore, the state of the need varies with the degree of In all our studies, we report all conditions and measures
personal satisfaction or frustration the individual experien- collected. No participants who completed our studies have
ces in a particular situation or period of time.” been excluded from any of the analyses unless otherwise
Consistent with self-esteem theories, we expect individ- noted. The sample size for each study was determined be-
uals experiencing a temporary boost in self-esteem, as fore data collection began. We estimated a minimum re-
compared to a neutral state, to be more motivated to main- quired sample size of 50 per condition based on an

tain their current, positive self-esteem level. If so, we pre- estimate of medium effect size (f ¼ 0.25) for a study pow-
dict that people experiencing enhanced self-esteem will be ered at 80% at an alpha level of p ¼ .05. This number is
more apt to engage in prosocial behavior. Prosocial behav- also consistent with the recommendations of Simmons,
ior helps people maintain their boosted self-esteem because Nelson, and Simonsohn (2013). To maximize power, we
positive behavior toward others reinforces a positive sense aimed for a minimum of 60 participants per experimental
of self, given that prosocial behavior is universally admired condition for laboratory studies and a minimum of 100 par-
and valued (Klein et al. 2015). ticipants per condition for studies using online samples.
In sum, we expect that a boost in one’s self-esteem
increases prosocial behavior. Given our proposed effect of STUDY 1A: OWNERSHIP MAKES PEOPLE
psychological ownership on self-esteem, we hypothesize MORE LIKELY TO HELP OTHERS
the following:
In study 1A, we test whether psychological ownership
H1: Activating a sense of psychological ownership results in greater prosocial behavior (hypothesis 1). We
increases individuals’ likelihood of engaging in prosocial manipulate psychological ownership through touch.
behavior in unrelated domains. Research shows that merely touching an object increases
H2: The positive relationship between ownership and proso- felt ownership of the object (Peck and Shu 2009).
cial behavior is mediated by increases in state self-esteem. Accordingly, we argue that individuals’ felt ownership of
the object and thus their subsequent behavior varies based
on whether they touched the object or not.
OVERVIEW OF STUDIES
Using various inductions of psychological ownership, Method
we conducted seven experiments (with three additional Participants. One hundred and thirty-five students (76
experiments reported in a web appendix) to test our hy- men, 59 women) at a US university participated in the
potheses. Using two different experimental manipulations study. They received $15 for their participation in a 1 hour
of psychological ownership, studies 1A and 1B examine its session that included multiple studies, this one being the
effect on prosocial behavior in the context of volunteering last study they completed. Their mean age was 22.9 years
time (study 1A) and charitable giving (study 1B). (In the (SD ¼ 4.3).
web appendix, we report the results from study S1 in the
web appendix that replicate these findings with a different Design and Procedure. We conducted four sessions
manipulation of psychological ownership.) In study 2, we (between 32 and 36 participants in each session) and ran-
examine the effect of psychological ownership on self- domly assigned each session to the study conditions (touch
esteem and other alternative mechanisms and confounds. or no touch). Upon arrival, participants sat in front of indi-
(Study S2 in the web appendix, reported in the web appen- vidual computers and completed an online survey.
dix, also replicated these findings using a different manipu- Manipulation of Ownership. In the survey, all partici-
lation of ownership.) Study 3 investigates the mediating pants were told that they owned a mug and that it was
role of self-esteem in the link between psychological own- theirs to keep and take home. They were asked to take a
ership and prosocial behavior. In studies 4 and 5, we exam- minute to evaluate the product closely and then respond to
ine two individual differences, materialism and mine-me a few questions. In the no-touch condition, the mugs were
sensitivity, as moderators of the relationship between own- placed on a table by the door where every participant could
ership and helping. Finally, in study 6, we test whether the see them as they entered the laboratory. They also saw an
effect of ownership is attenuated when negative attributes image of their mug on their computer and were reminded
of one’s possessions are made relevant. (Study S3 in the that they would get to take one home later. In the touch
web appendix, reported in the web appendix, replicated condition, a mug was placed next to participants’ com-
these finding using a donation task.) Together, our studies puters on the table, and they were encouraged to take the
mug in their hands and touch it. We used a mug because customize the mug for themselves to donate more than
mugs are commonly used in endowment studies to induce those who design it for a typical customer.
a sense of psychological ownership (Peck and Shu 2009).
In addition, because mugs are familiar objects, touching Method
provided minimal additional information about the object
Participants. Two hundred and seventeen workers
to participants.
(127 men, 89 women, and 1 nonbinary/other) from the
In a pretest, we asked 103 students (43 men, 60 women;
Amazon Mechanical Turk website participated in the study
Mage¼ 23.5, SD¼ 4.7) who either touched or did not touch
in exchange for $0.45. Their mean age was 36.8 years (SD
a mug to indicate, based on a 7-point scale (1 ¼ strongly
¼ 11.2).
disagree, 7 ¼ strongly agree), how much they agree with

three statements: “I feel like this is my mug,” “I feel a very Design and Procedure. We randomly assigned partici-
high degree of personal ownership of the mug,” and “I feel pants to one of the two conditions (ownership or control).
like I own this mug.” Results confirmed that those who We told participants that we are working with a company
touched the mug reported a greater sense of psychological that sells coffee mugs and that the company can engrave a
ownership (M ¼ 4.28, SD ¼ 1.40) as compared to those in message on their mug. Participants could customize a mug
the no-touch condition (M ¼ 3.29, SD ¼ 1.59; t(101) ¼ by writing a message for it, choosing the font of the mes-
3.31, p ¼ .001, d ¼ 0.66). sage, and choosing a design to appear below the message.
After receiving the instructions for the ownership manip- Manipulation of Ownership. In the ownership condi-
ulation (touch versus no touch), all participants reported tion, participants were told to imagine that they are cus-
their current mood by completing the Positive (a ¼ 0.94) tomizing the mug for themselves. In the control condition,
and Negative (a ¼ 0.94) Affectivity Schedule (Watson, we told participants that the company is looking for a mes-
Clark, and Tellegen 1988) on a 7-point scale (1 ¼ not at all, sage that would make the mug more attractive to customers
7 ¼ extremely). and increase the chance that people would purchase the
To measure willingness to help, at the end of the study, mug. So, participants were asked to choose a message and
participants were presented with an opportunity to help the a design that would make the mug attractive for a typical
research team by completing a 5 minute survey voluntarily customer. After participants typed in the message, choose
for no extra pay. If participants decided to help, they then the font style, and chose the design, we showed them a pic-
answered a few filler questions for about 5 minutes and re- ture of the customized mug. In both conditions, partici-
ceived a message thanking them for choosing to help. If pants were asked to evaluate the mug across three
they chose not to help, the survey was skipped. dimensions (i.e., design of the mug, style of the mug han-
dle, and size of the mug) and indicate how likely they
Results would be to purchase the mug. Then, to reinforce the own-
To examine whether psychological ownership influ- ership of the mug, we asked participants in the ownership
enced prosocial behavior, we counted the number of partic- condition to imagine using their mug to drink coffee or tea
ipants who chose to help. Participants who touched the and to write 3–4 sentences explaining how they feel. In the
mug were more likely to help the research team (52 of 65; control condition, participants wrote about what they liked
80%) than were those in the no-touch condition (44 of 70; or disliked about the mug in 3–4 sentences. For the
62.9%; v2(1, N ¼ 135) ¼ 4.82, p ¼ .028). manipulation check, we asked for participants’ level of
The ownership manipulation did not influence positive agreement on the same three statements (a ¼ 0.95) used in
(t(133) ¼ 0.42, p ¼ .68) or negative affect (t(133) ¼ 0.44, study 1A.
p ¼ 0.66). Donation. After the mug-customization task, we
thanked participants for their input and provided them with
STUDY 1B: OWNERSHIP MAKES PEOPLE 25 cents as an extra token of appreciation. Then, we
MORE GENEROUS TOWARD OTHERS highlighted the difficulties that some people are facing
dealing with the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic.
In study 1B, we manipulate ownership through the cus- We told participants that they have an option to donate part
tomization of a product. Research shows that self- or all of their extra 25 cents payment to a charity helping
investment in a product, achieved by customizing a prod- COVID-19 relief. We also told them that we will match
uct, increases felt ownership of a target entity (Kirk et al. the amount they decide to donate. We asked them how
2018). In this study, all participants were asked to design a much of their extra 25 cents they want to donate and
mug either for themselves or for a typical customer. highlighted that they will receive the amount they do not
Subsequently, participants had a chance to actually donate donate as a bonus payment. Participants could choose their
part of their payment to a charity. We expect those who donation amount with intervals of 5 cents.
Results and Discussion can influence outcomes, at least related to the target entity.
Owning an object allows the owner to control the posses-
The results show that our manipulation of ownership
sion’s destiny (e.g., by altering it, selling it, or giving it
was successful, given that participants in the ownership
away), thus facilitating feelings of confidence, compe-
condition reported feeling a greater sense of psychological
tence, and control. Despite debates on distinctions between
ownership (M ¼ 5.71, SD ¼ 1.52) as compared to those in
the two constructs of general self-efficacy and global self-
the control condition (M ¼ 5.16, SD ¼ 1.54), t(215) ¼
esteem, research has treated the constructs as distinct, with
2.67, p ¼ .008, d ¼ 0.36. the former tapping more motivational general beliefs about
An examination of participants’ donation behavior one’s efficacy and the latter capturing more general atti-
shows that a larger portion of participants in the ownership tudes toward oneself (Chen, Gully, and Eden 2001). It is

condition (67.3%) donated part or all of their extra pay- possible that a sense of efficaciousness leads people to feel
ment to a COVID-19 relief charity compared to those in that they are capable of helping others effectively.
the control condition (55.8%), v2(1, N ¼ 217) ¼ 3.03, p ¼ Ownership can contribute to one’s sense of power—both
.082. The results of both Kolmogorov–Smirnov and one’s social power (i.e., power over other people) and
Shapiro–Wilk tests of normality indicate that the distribu- one’s personal power (i.e., freedom from other people).
tion of donation amounts in ownership and control condi- For example, people can exert control over other people
tions significantly deviate from a normal distribution (p < when they own an important resource needed by others.
.001). Hence, we used a nonparametric test (i.e., Mann– Also, owning money and wealth gives people the potential
Whitney U test) to examine the difference in donation to be free from the influence of others and to be personally
amounts between the ownership and control conditions. independent (Anderson, John, and Keltner 2012). Thus, it
Results show that those in the ownership condition donated is possible that reminding people of their possessions indu-
more of their extra payment to a charity (M ¼ ¢9.96, SD ¼ ces a sense of power. While power is often associated with
9.17, Mrank ¼ 117.05) than did those in the control condi- being selfish (Rucker, Dubois, and Galinsky 2011), re-
tion (M ¼ ¢7.50, SD ¼ 8.67, Mrank ¼ 100.25; Mann– search has recognized conditions in which powerfulness
Whitney U ¼ 4,966, p ¼ .041, g2 ¼ 0.019). There was no leads to prosocial behavior (DeCelles et al. 2012). Hence,
significant difference between the ownership and control power could be a potential mechanism for the effect of
conditions on participants’ evaluation of the mug (p > .80) ownership on prosocial behavior.
and their likelihood of purchasing it (p ¼ .32). It is also likely that people feel they are fortunate, pros-
In sum, studies 1A and 1B provide support for hypothe- perous, and privileged when they elaborate on their posses-
sis 1, showing that felt ownership led to prosocial behavior sions. This could subsequently induce guilt and push them
in the form of either helping others or making a donation toward acting prosocially, given that guilt is associated
to charities. As noted, study S1 in the web appendix also with increased prosocial behavior (Quiles and Bybee
provides support for hypothesis 1, showing that psycholog- 1997). Thus, we empirically examine whether psychologi-
ical ownership over one’s workspace makes people more cal ownership induces the feeling of being well-off.
generous toward others. Research has recognized the reciprocity norm as a pow-
erful determinant of prosocial behavior (Snyder and Dwyer
COMPETING EXPLANATIONS 2012). When people receive a favor, they feel obligated to
repay it. In study 1A, we manipulated ownership by giving
We argued for the role of state self-esteem as the pri- a mug to participants and asking them to touch it. Hence, it
mary psychological mechanism that explains the link be- is likely that participants decided to reciprocate their re-
tween ownership and prosocial behavior. However, we ceipt of the free mug by helping the research team with the
acknowledge that several other psychological processes are extra survey. Although people in both the touch and no-
likely to play a role. We intentionally focused on state self- touch conditions received the mug, it is likely that the extra
esteem because we believe it is the common thread across sensations in the touch condition boosted the value of mug
almost all ownership experiences, given the personal and and thus the importance of returning the perceived favor.
the social aspects of ownership highlighted earlier. We Therefore, participants helped the research team more in
briefly discuss five other psychological processes that may the touch condition. We examine whether psychological
be at play and that have also been linked to prosocial be- ownership enhances participants’ sense of obligation to
havior or ownership in past literature: general self-efficacy, reciprocate.
power, feeling well-off, reciprocity, and affect. Shu and Peck (2011) found that people react positively
Self-efficacy is the feeling of being capable and compe- to objects they own. These positive feelings could lead
tent of acting to achieve a particular outcome (Bandura individuals to experience positive affect more generally.
1977). Psychological ownership can increase feelings of However, research on the mere ownership effect has not
efficacy, since to have is a fundamental form of agency; found evidence of ownership impacting general affect. For
being in control makes people believe they are capable and example, in Beggan’s study (1992), participants’ self-
reported mood did not differ as a function of experimental Manipulation of Ownership. In the ownership condi-
condition (owner vs. nonowner). Similarly, Weiss and tion, the instructions read:
Johar (2013) reported no effects of ownership on positive
affect. Given that we measured general affect rather than Please think and write about a past situation or time in
affective reactions or commitment to the target of owner- which you experienced a strong sense of ownership.
ship, we did not find (study 1A) and did not expect to find Describe the situation and any thoughts and feelings you re-
differences in affect resulting from psychological owner- member from the experience. Please write at least five sen-
tences, providing as many details as possible so that a per-
ship. Nevertheless, because of the link between a person’s
son reading your entry would understand the situation and
positive mood and willingness to help others (Isen and
how you felt.
Levin 1972), we decided to empirically examine the role of

affect. In the control condition, the instructions instead read:
Please think and write about how you spent your time yes-
STUDY 2: POTENTIAL MEDIATORS terday. Please write at least five sentences, providing as
many details as possible so that a person reading your entry
We ran a two-part study to examine the effect of psycho- would understand the situation and how you felt.
logical ownership on individuals’ self-esteem, self-effi-
cacy, power, feeling well-off, reciprocity, and affect. The Thirteen participants (nine in the ownership condition
first part of the study captured the base level of the varia- and four in the control condition) did not follow the
bles without the manipulation of ownership. We did not in- instructions, so their responses were removed from the
analysis.
clude affect and reciprocity in the first part of the study
because they are mostly reactive to situational factors. We Measurement of Potential Mediators. Participants
posted the second part of the study 5 days after the first completed a 10-item (e.g., “I am satisfied with myself”)
part and invited everyone who completed the first part to state version of the self-esteem scale (a ¼ 0.93; Rosenberg
participate in the second part. We informed participants 1979), an 8-item (e.g., “I am confident that I can perform
that the second part would be open only for 24 hours and effectively on many different tasks”) scale of general self-
asked them to complete the second part within the 24 hour efficacy (a ¼ 0.96; Chen et al. 2001), and an 8-item (e.g.,
period. We sent three reminder emails within that time pe- “I think I have a great deal of power”) scale measuring the
riod to increase the participation rate for the second part of generalized sense of power (a ¼ 0.90; Anderson and
the study. In the second part, we used a recall manipulation Galinsky 2006). For all these scales, they indicated how
of psychological ownership in which participants recalled much they agreed with each statement on a 7-point scale
and wrote about a personal ownership experience. The goal (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 7 ¼ strongly agree).
of this study is to determine whether the manipulation of We measured feeling well-off using two different
scales. We edited the Hatfield Global Measure of equity
ownership changes any of the studied variables as com-
(single item; Hatfield, Utne, and Traupmann 1979) to as-
pared to their base level in time 1.
sess participants’ perceived equity in their lives as com-
pared to other people. Specifically, participants read:
Method “Considering your life at this moment, what you put into
Participants. Three-hundred and ninety-eight MTurk it and what you get from it, how does your total life stack
workers (173 males, 223 females, 2 nonbinary/other) com- up?” They responded using a 7-point scale (1 ¼ I am get-
pleted the first part of the study. Of these participants, 239 ting a much worse deal than most people, 7 ¼ I am getting
workers (100 males, 138 females, 1 nonbinary/other) com- a much better deal than most people). We also used a sec-
pleted the second part of the study. The mean age of partic- ond scale to measure feeling well-off. In this scale, we
ipants who completed both parts of the study was asked participants to indicate how much they experience
41.2 years (SD ¼ 13.20). being “fortunate,” “well-off,” “prosperous,” and
“privileged” (a ¼ 0.88) using a 7-point scale (1 ¼ very lit-
Design and Procedure. In the first part of the study, tle, 7 ¼ a lot). Correlation between the two scales of feel-
participants responded to measures of self-esteem, self-ef- ing well-off is r ¼ 0.58 (p < .001) at time 1 and r ¼ 0.65
ficacy, power, feeling well-off, and a few demographic (p < .001) at time 2.
questions. In the second part of the study, we first ran- To capture participants’ feelings of obligation to recipro-
domly assigned participants to one of the two conditions cate (reciprocity), participants completed a 5-item scale (a
(ownership or control) and manipulated psychological ¼ 0.83) indicating how much they feel “obligated,”
ownership. Next, participants responded to the same scales “indebted,” “appreciative,” “thankful,” and “grateful” at
used in the first part and reciprocity and positive and nega- that moment. They responded using a 7-point scale
tive affect scales. (1 ¼ feel very little, 7 ¼ feel a lot).
TABLE 1
CORRELATION BETWEEN VARIABLES IN STUDY 2—TIME 1
Self-efficacy Power Being well-off (Hatfield) Being well-off
Self-esteem 0.70*** 0.59*** 0.42*** 0.34***

Self-efficacy 0.56*** 0.39*** 0.41***
Power 0.45*** 0.38***
Being well-off (Hatfield) 0.58***
***p < .001, N ¼ 398.

We used the Positive (a ¼ 0.94) and Negative (a ¼ psychological ownership on feeling well-off, as measured
0.97) Affectivity Schedule (Watson et al. 1988) on a 7- by the second scale (F(1, 223) ¼ 1.29, p ¼ .26).
point scale (1 ¼ not at all, 7 ¼ extremely) to measure par- The effect of ownership on feelings of obligation to re-
ticipants’ affective response. ciprocate was not significant (F(1, 224) < 1). Moreover,
psychological ownership did not change participants’ posi-
Results and Discussion tive (F(1, 224) ¼ 1.14, p ¼ .29) or negative affect (F(1,
224) < 1). We also specifically examined participants’
We compared participants who completed both parts of
feelings of guilt to determine if writing about ownership
the study and those who completed only the first part to see
makes participants feel guilty (perhaps as a result of having
if they significantly differ on the base level of the variables
many possessions). The results show that ownership does
measured in time 1. The results showed that, except for self-
not have a significant effect on feelings of guilt (F(1, 224)
esteem, participants who completed both parts of the study
¼ 1.39, p ¼ .24).
did not differ from those who only completed the first part Overall, the results of study 2 show that psychological
on other measures (p > .22). Participants who completed ownership only changes individuals’ self-esteem and does
both parts of the study had marginally higher self-esteem not have a significant effect on their self-efficacy, power,
(M ¼ 5.41, SD ¼ 1.20) than those who only completed the feeling well-off, reciprocity, or positive and negative af-
first part (M ¼ 5.20, SD ¼ 1.23, t(396) ¼ 1.72, p ¼ .086). fect, despite the fact that these concepts are highly corre-
We do not expect the marginal difference in participants’ lated with each other. Tables 1 and 2 show the correlations
base-level self-esteem to introduce a systematic bias in our between these measures in times 1 and 2. Study S2 in the
results, given that participants were randomly assign to the web appendix provides support for the generalizability of
ownership and control conditions in time 2. our findings by using a different manipulation of owner-
For the variables, we collected participants’ base level in ship (i.e., imagery touch).
time 1 (i.e., self-esteem, self-efficacy, power, and feeling
well-off), and we controlled for their base level when we
examined differences between the ownership and control STUDY 3: THE MEDIATING ROLE OF
conditions in time 2. SELF-ESTEEM
Potential Mediators. As expected, we found a signifi- In study 2, we showed that psychological ownership
cant effect of psychological ownership on self-esteem boosts individuals’ self-esteem. In this study, we test our
(F(1, 223) ¼ 4.21, p ¼ .041, partial-g2 ¼ 0.02). second hypothesis and examine whether the increase in
Participants in the ownership condition reported higher self-esteem explains the relationship between ownership
self-esteem (M ¼ 5.69, SD ¼ 1.15) as compared to those in and prosocial behavior.
the control condition (M ¼ 5.59, SD ¼ 1.10). Paired sample
t-tests show that participants’ self-esteem in the ownership Method
condition increased from time 1 (M ¼ 5.47, SD ¼ 1.24) to
Participants. Two hundred and eighty-one MTurk
time 2 (M ¼ 5.69, SD ¼ 1.15, t(106) ¼ 3.57, p ¼ .001, d ¼
workers (112 males, 169 females) participated in this
0.69). However, the self-esteem of those in the control con-
study. Their mean age was 38.2 years (SD ¼ 12.8).
dition did not change between time 1 (M ¼ 5.53, SD ¼
1.10) and time 2 (M ¼ 5.59, SD ¼ 1.10, t(118) ¼ 1.31, p ¼ Design and Procedure. We randomly assigned partici-
.19). The effect of ownership on self-efficacy and power pants to one of two conditions (ownership or control).
was not significant (F(1, 223) < 1). Participants were told that they would complete a number
The results show that participants’ responses to the of unrelated tasks throughout the study. The procedure to
Hatfield Global Measure of equity were not different be- manipulate ownership was identical to that used in study 2.
tween the ownership and control conditions (F(1, 223) We removed seven participants (four in the ownership con-
< 1). Also, we did not find a significant effect of dition and three in the control condition) from the analysis
TABLE 2
CORRELATION BETWEEN VARIABLES IN STUDY 2—TIME 2
Self-efficacy Power Being well-off Being well-off Reciprocity Positive affect Negative affect
(Hatfield)
Self-esteem 0.73*** 0.62*** 0.44*** 0.48*** 0.22** 0.53*** 0.68***

Self-efficacy 0.61*** 0.40*** 0.53*** 0.32*** 0.59*** 0.46***
Power 0.48*** 0.46*** 0.23*** 0.42*** 0.43***
Being well-off 0.65*** 0.19** 0.38*** 0.32***
(Hatfield)
Being well-off 0.55*** 0.68*** 0.24***

Reciprocity 0.57*** 0.04 (NS)
Positive affect 0.23**
**p < .01, ***p < .001, N ¼ 226.
because they did not follow the instructions (they either expected by our theorizing, ownership increased helping
did not complete the writing task or their writing was irrel- through increased self-esteem.
evant to what they were asked to write about). We used the
same self-esteem measure (a ¼ 0.95) as in study 2 to mea- STUDY 4: THE MODERATING ROLE OF
sure self-esteem. MATERIALISM
Helping. Participants were asked to read a scenario and
People vary in how much they value material posses-
indicate the likelihood they would engage in the described
sions, and materialism captures this individual difference
behavior on a 7-point scale (1 ¼ extremely unlikely,
(Belk 1985; Richins 2002). Richins and Dawson (1992)
7 ¼ extremely likely). The likelihood to help in this sce-
conceptualize materialism as encompassing three domains:
nario was our dependent measure. The story read:
“the use of possessions to judge the success of others and
IMAGINE, you’ve waited in line for 10 minutes to buy a oneself, the centrality of possessions in a person’s life, and
coffee and muffin. Just as your turn is about to come, the the belief that possessions and their acquisition lead to hap-
person in front of you at the checkout counter has forgotten piness and life satisfaction” (Richins 2004, 201).
their wallet and doesn’t have $5 to pay the bill. How likely Materialistic people are more likely to experience chroni-
are you to give $5 to the person so they can pay for their cally low self-esteem and to believe that possessions will
purchase? provide them with an improved sense of self-esteem
(Richins 2002). Accordingly, we expect that activating a
Results and Discussion sense of psychological ownership will have a stronger im-
pact on the self-esteem of materialistic people. We do not
Participants’ self-esteem in the ownership condition expect a significant change in the self-esteem of individu-
(M ¼ 5.61, SD ¼ 1.29) was higher than in the control con- als low on materialism after psychological ownership expe-
dition (M ¼ 5.26, SD ¼ 1.33) t(272) ¼ 2.19, p ¼ .029, d ¼ riences because they do not assess their success and
0.27. Moreover, consistent with our hypothesis, we found a happiness based on their possessions.
significant effect of ownership on willingness to help A review of the relationship between materialism and
(t(272) ¼ 2.40, p ¼ .017, d ¼ 0.29). Participants in the prosocial behavior clarifies how materialism moderates the
ownership condition were more likely to indicate they effect of ownership on prosocial behavior. Scholars gener-
would help in the scenario (M ¼ 4.71, SD ¼ 2.04) as com- ally have viewed materialism negatively, given its undesir-
pared to those in the control condition (M ¼ 4.13, SD ¼ able effects on well-being. Materialism fosters social
1.94). isolation because overemphasizing the value of possessions
To test whether self-esteem mediated the effect of own- undermines social values (Pieters 2013). Accordingly, ma-
ership on differences in likelihood to help, we used the terialistic people have a lower tendency toward prosocial
bootstrapping approach (model 4) (Hayes 2018) with behaviors, as seen in lower likelihoods of making organ
10,000 iterations. We found that self-esteem has a signifi- donations (Belk and Austin 1986), sharing a cash windfall
cant indirect effect (indirect effect ¼ 0.087; 95% bias- with others (Belk 1985; Richins and Dawson 1992), and
corrected confidence interval ¼ CI [0.014, 0.219]). Thus, making charitable contributions (Richins and Dawson
the results of study 3 provide support for the psychological 1992). The lower prosocial tendency disturbs the formation
mechanism responsible for the effect of psychological of social relationships and results in loneliness, which, in
ownership on prosocial behavior (hypothesis 2). As turn, reinforces materialism as people try to cope with their
loneliness through material relationships (Pieters 2013). Afterward, all participants were asked to evaluate the prod-
Combining the stronger impact of ownership on the self- uct on a few dimensions. As a manipulation check, we
esteem of materialistic people and the negative relationship measured participants’ felt ownership using the same three
between materialism and prosocial behavior, we expect items (a ¼ 0.94) as in study 1A.
psychological ownership to attenuate the effect of material- As in study 1A, we then measured willingness to help by
ism on prosocial behavior. In other words, in the absence offering participants an opportunity to complete a 5 minute
of psychological ownership, we expect a negative relation- survey voluntarily, for no extra pay, to help the research
ship between materialism and prosocial behavior (i.e., such team. Those who decided to help answered a few filler
that materialistic people are less helpful); however, in the questions and received a message thanking them for help-
presence of psychological ownership, we expect material- ing the research team; otherwise, the filler questionnaire

istic individuals to be just as likely to be altruistic as those was skipped.
low on materialism.
In this study, we examine the role of materialism on the Results and Discussion
relationship between psychological ownership and proso-
Participants in the ownership condition reported feeling
cial behavior. We predict the effect of ownership on proso-
a greater sense of psychological ownership (M ¼ 3.17, SD
cial behavior to be stronger for materialistic people. Also,
¼ 1.94) as compared to those in the control condition
psychological ownership should attenuate the negative im-
(M ¼ 2.35, SD ¼ 1.57), t(180) ¼ 3.20, p ¼ .002, d ¼ 0.48.
pact of materialism on prosocial behavior.
There is no significant main effect of materialism (t(180)
¼ 1.60, p ¼ .11) or interaction between ownership and ma-
Method terialism on the feelings of ownership (F(1, 180) ¼ 1.49, p
Participants. One hundred and eighty-four adults (96 ¼ .22). Thus, our manipulation was successful.
men, 88 women) at a US university participated in the Participants in the ownership condition chose to help the
study. They received $20 for their participation in a 1 hour research team more frequently (83 of 94; 88.3%) than those
session that included multiple studies, this one being the in the control condition (66 of 90; 73.3%; v2(1, N ¼ 184) ¼
last study they completed. Their mean age was 31.6 years 6.68, p ¼ .010, supporting hypothesis 1). Moreover, we
(SD ¼ 12.1). replicated the negative relationship between materialism
and prosocial behavior highlighted by past research, given
Design and Procedure. The study used a 2 (ownership
that there was a negative correlation (r ¼ 0.183, p
vs. control) by materialism (measured) design. Participants
¼.084) between materialism and helping in the control
completed the 15-item measure of material values scale
condition.
(Richins 2004), presented as a seemingly unrelated ques-
We tested for the moderating role of materialism. We
tionnaire. Participants indicated the extent to which they
employed the bootstrapping approach (model 1) (Hayes
agreed with each statement on a 7-point scale (1 ¼ strongly
2018) with 10,000 iterations. This analysis revealed a sig-
disagree, 7 ¼ strongly agree). Sample items include:
nificant interaction effect (B ¼ 0.80, SE ¼ 0.42, p ¼ 0.056)
“Some of the most important achievements in life include
of ownership condition and materialism on helping.
acquiring material possessions” and “The things I own say
Following Spiller et al.’s (2013) suggestion, we ran a
a lot about how well I’m doing in life.” We then averaged
floodlight analysis and used the Johnson-Neyman tech-
the items to form a material values score (a ¼ 0.85).
nique to identify the range of materialism scale for which
To minimize possible effect of the materialism scale on
the effect of ownership on helping behavior was signifi-
the manipulation of ownership, we isolated the material
cant. The analysis revealed a significant main effect of
values scale from the manipulation study by asking partici-
ownership on helping behavior for those who scored 3.51
pants to complete several other unrelated studies from
(BJN ¼ 0.83, SE ¼ 0.42, p ¼ .05) or above on the material-
other researchers for about 30 minutes.
ism scale (i.e., 62.5% of participants) but not for those who
Manipulation of Ownership. We used a procedure sim- scored below 3.51 on the materialism scale (37.5% of par-
ilar to that used in study 1A. Participants were randomly ticipants). Moreover, the correlation between materialism
assigned to one of the two conditions. We placed a mug on and helping was not significant (r ¼ 0.106, p ¼ .309) in
every laboratory table. In the control condition, partici- the ownership condition. Figure 1 shows participants’
pants were asked to take a minute to evaluate the mug. In probability of helping with completing an additional sur-
the ownership condition, participants were asked to imag- vey based on the conditions (i.e., ownership vs. control)
ine that the mug on the table was theirs. They were asked and the materialism scale.
to think about their ownership of the product by consider- The results of study 4 confirm our expectations by show-
ing where they would keep the mug and what they would ing that the effect of ownership on prosocial behavior is
do with it. They were specifically instructed to take the stronger for those high on materialism. Also, we show that
product in hand and touch it before evaluating it. psychological ownership attenuates the negative impact of
FIGURE 1 consider or do not consider objects as part of the self, re-

gardless of whether they own those objects. As such, asso-
PROBABILITY OF HELPING AS A FUNCTION OF CONDITION ciation between objects and the self does not change much
(OWNERSHIP VERSUS CONTROL) AND MATERIALISM
based on ownership of the objects. Hence, psychological
Probability ownership should not boost self-esteem and increase the
of Helping helping behavior of those with low mine-me sensitivity.
3.51
1 Unlike materialism, the link between mine-me sensitiv-
0.9 ity and prosocial behavior has not been examined in the lit-
0.8 erature. However, we believe that, similar to materialism,
it is reasonable to expect people with high mine-me sensi-

0.7
tivity to be more self-oriented (i.e., less prosocial). In fact,
0.6
Weiss and Johar (2013) show that people with high mine-
0.5
me sensitivity are more likely to use an egocentric catego-
0.4 rization when they think about objects they own. This sug-
0.3 gests that people with high mine-me sensitivity are more
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
likely to be self-oriented. Self-oriented individuals are less
Materialism
likely to engage in altruistic helping behavior as compared
Control Ownership to other-oriented individuals (Snyder and Dwyer 2012). As
such, in the absence of psychological ownership, we pre-
dict a negative relationship between mine-me sensitivity
and prosocial behavior. In study 5, we examine the role of
materialism on prosocial behavior and makes materialistic
mine-me sensitivity as an individual difference on the rela-
people as likely to help others as those low on materialism.
tionship between psychological ownership and prosocial
behavior.
STUDY 5: THE MODERATING ROLE OF
“MINE-ME” SENSITIVITY
Central to our argument linking psychological owner-
Method
ship to self-esteem is the degree to which ownership Participants. One hundred and ninety-four adults (94
strengthens the bond between possessions and self- men, 100 women) at a US university participated in the
knowledge. While the idea of possessions as the extended study. They received $20 for their participation in a 1 hour
self was introduced many years ago (Belk 1988), Weiss session that included multiple studies, this one being the
and Johar (2013) have more recently conceptualized last study they completed. Their mean age was 30.4 years
“mine-me” sensitivity as an individual difference that cap- (SD ¼ 12.2).
tures how much ownership of an object determines the ex-
tent to which individuals associate the object with the self.
For individuals low in mine-me sensitivity, the association Design and Procedure. The study used a 2 (ownership
between objects and the self does not change much based vs. control) by mine-me sensitivity (measured) design.
on whether they own the objects or not. However, those Participants completed the four-item measure of mine-me
with elevated mine-me sensitivity strongly associate their sensitivity (Weiss and Johar 2013), presented as a seem-
possessions, but not objects they do not own, with their ingly unrelated questionnaire. Participants were asked to
identity (Weiss and Johar 2013, 2016). For example, when indicate the extent to which they view different objects as
owning a masculine product, individuals are more likely to part of their personal self-identity. They were presented
judge themselves as being masculine if they are high ver- with four objects (in a random order) and rated each object
sus low on mine-me sensitivity (Weiss and Johar 2013). as part of the self using a 7-point scale (1 ¼ not at all part
As we argued and showed earlier, activating psychologi- of myself to 7 ¼ extremely part of myself). They owned
cal ownership boosts self-esteem and increases prosocial two of the items: the shoes and shirt they were wearing;
behavior. While this effect holds for most people, we ex- they did not own the other two items: the laboratory table
pect the degree to which ownership strengthens the bonds and seat. A mine-me sensitivity scale is created by sub-
between possessions and the self (i.e., mine-me sensitivity) tracting the average rating of the two unowned objects
to moderate the effect of ownership on self-esteem and from the average rating of the two owned objects. The rest
prosocial behavior. Specifically, we expect that high mine- of procedures were identical to study 4. We used the same
me sensitivity enhances the effect of ownership on proso- manipulation check (a ¼ 0.94) and provided participants
cial behavior. People with low mine-me sensitivity either with an opportunity to help.
Results and Discussion FIGURE 2

Participants in the ownership condition reported feeling
PROBABILITY OF HELPING AS A FUNCTION OF CONDITION
a greater sense of psychological ownership (M ¼ 2.94, SD (OWNERSHIP VERSUS CONTROL) AND MINE-ME SENSITIVITY
¼ 1.75) as compared to those in the control condition
(M ¼ 2.21, SD ¼ 1.49; t(192) ¼ 3.16, p ¼ .002, d ¼ 0.46). Probability
of Helping
There is no significant interaction between ownership and 1 2.86
mine-me sensitivity on the experience of psychological
0.9
ownership (F < 1).
Participants in the ownership condition were more likely 0.8

to help the research team (76 of 99; 76.8%) than partici-
0.7
pants in the control condition (61 of 95; 64.2%;
v2(1, N ¼ 194) ¼ 3.68, p ¼ .055, supporting hypothesis 1). 0.6
We tested for the moderating role of mine-me sensitivity
0.5
using the bootstrapping approach (model 1) (Hayes 2018)
with 10,000 iterations. This analysis revealed a significant 0.4
interaction effect (B ¼ 0.52, SE ¼ 0.20, p ¼ 0.010) of own-
0.3
ership and participants’ mine-me sensitivity on helping. A 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
floodlight analysis using the Johnson-Neyman technique Mine-Me Sensitivity
revealed a significant effect of ownership on helping for
Control Ownership
those who scored 2.86 (BJN ¼ 0.65, SE ¼ 0.33, p ¼ .05) or
above on mine-me sensitivity scale (i.e., 53.6% of partici-
pants) but not for those who scored below 2.86 on mine-
me sensitivity scale (46.4% of participants). Figure 2 important role in boosting self-esteem when one reflects on
shows participants’ probability of helping with completing an owned object. Clearly, reducing the benefits of a posses-
an additional survey based on the conditions (i.e., owner- sion weakens the link between psychological ownership
ship vs. control) and the mine-me sensitivity scale. and self-esteem. Accordingly, we expect that making the
The results confirm our speculation that there is a nega- negative attributes of one’s possession salient will attenu-
tive correlation between mine-me sensitivity and helping ate the effect of ownership on self-esteem and subse-
in the control condition (r ¼ .211, p ¼ .040). However,
quently on prosocial behavior. We designed study 6 to test
our results show that psychological ownership attenuates
this prediction.
this negative correlation and flips the effect, such that there
exists a weak positive relationship between mine-me sensi-
tivity and helping behavior (r ¼ 0.167, p ¼ .099). Method
In sum, the results of study 5 confirm our expectations,
Participants. Four-hundred and six (200 males, 204
showing that the effect of psychological ownership is
females, one nonbinary/other, and one missing data)
stronger for participants with high mine-me sensitivity. We
MTurk workers participated in this study in exchange for
also find that psychological ownership attenuates the nega-
$0.75. Their mean age was 36.4 years (SD ¼ 11.9).
tive impact of mine-me sensitivity on prosocial behavior
and makes those with high mine-me sensitivity as likely Design and Procedure. We randomly assigned partici-
(or even more likely) to help others as those low on mine-
pants to one of the four conditions in a 2 (ownership:
me sensitivity.
owner vs. control) by 2 (product features: negative vs. pos-
itive) between-participant design.
STUDY 6: THE MODERATING ROLE OF
POSSESSIONS’ ATTRIBUTES Manipulation of Ownership. We manipulated both psy-
chological ownership and product features by asking par-
People value their possessions because of the benefits ticipants to read and reflect on the following scenario
these possessions provide, in the form of comfort, conve- about acquiring a new mobile phone device: positive
nience, pleasure, ability to accomplish tasks, saving time, [negative].
social position, and building identity (Richins 2002). If
people perceive that the cost of owning an object exceeds You depend a lot on your cellphone during a day. You use it
its benefits, they often have the option of ending ownership frequently for many work-related or personal tasks such as
by selling, donating, or discarding the possession. Given making phone calls, checking the weather, the news high-
that people value possessions for their added value lights, and your emails, posting and reading posts on social
(Richins 2002), we believe that these benefits play an media, watching videos, and searching the Internet.
Your old cellphone was outdated, so you bought a new cell- FIGURE 3
phone two weeks ago. You were waiting to buy this new
model for few months. PARTICIPANTS’ SELF-ESTEEM AS A FUNCTION OF
Your new phone is the newest generation of smartphones, OWNERSHIP CONDITION AND PRODUCT FEATURES. ERROR
BARS REPRESENT 95% CONFIDENCE INTERVALS OF THE
among top mobile phones introduced this year. Over the
MEAN
past two weeks, your cellphone has been working great [act-
ing weird], [not really] as you expected. There have not Self-esteem
been any issues [have been many issues] with it. 6
It has plenty of storage space, a long-lasting battery, crystal- 5.8
5.6
clear display, a great camera, and the ability to watch
5.4

streaming video and video downloads on top of many other
5.2
cool features. 5
[It has plenty of storage space but its battery does not last 4.8
long, the display is blurry, the camera does not work prop- 4.6
erly, and during watching a video the picture freezes 4.4
frequently.] 4.2
Overall, you are satisfied [not satisfied] with your cellphone. 4
Negative Positive
It is [is not] functioning properly.
Product Features
To reinforce feelings of psychological ownership, we
asked people in the owner condition to write 3–4 sentences Owner Control
about the scenario they read and how they felt. In the con-
trol condition, we provided the same scenarios but from a
third-person perspective (i.e., “Alex depends a lot on his
cellphone (M ¼ 5.04, SD ¼ 2.01) as compared to those in
cellphone . . .”). To maintain the similarities between the
the negative product feature condition (M ¼ 4.35, SD ¼
owner and the control conditions, we asked people in the
2.03; F(1, 402) ¼ 17.2, p < .001, partial-g2 ¼ 0.04). There
control condition to summarize the scenario they just read
is no significant interaction between ownership and prod-
in 3–4 sentences.
uct features on psychological ownership (F < 1).
After manipulating ownership and product features, we
There were a significant main effect of ownership on
measured self-esteem with the same 10-item self-esteem
self-esteem (F(1, 402) ¼ 3.81, p ¼ .052, partial-g2 ¼
measure (a ¼ 0.93) used in study 2. Subsequently, we mea-
0.009) and a significant interaction effect between owner-
sured participants’ prosocial tendencies using a scale de-
ship and product features on participants’ self-esteem (F(1,
veloped by past research (Toure-Tillery and Light 2018).
402) ¼ 5.97, p ¼ .015, partial-g2 ¼ 0.015). The main ef-
In this scale, participants read eight brief scenarios (a ¼
fect of product features was not significant (F < 1).
0.61), each providing an opportunity for prosocial behavior
Pairwise comparisons between the owner and the control
(e.g., “While you are taking a walk downtown, a homeless
conditions show a significant effect of ownership on self-
person asks you for money. Would you give money to this
esteem in the positive product feature condition (Mowner ¼
homeless person?”). Next, participants were asked to indi-
5.63, SDowner ¼ 1.13, Mcontrol ¼ 5.09, SDcontrol ¼ 1.24,
cate the likelihood of acting prosocially on a 5-point scale
F(1, 402) ¼ 9.62, p ¼ .002, partial-g2 ¼ 0.023). However,
(1 ¼ absolutely not, 5 ¼ absolutely yes). Finally, as a ma-
the effect of ownership on self-esteem is not significant in
nipulation check, participants were asked to report their
the negative product feature condition (Mowner ¼ 5.22,
felt ownership of the cellphone with the same three items
SDowner ¼ 1.24, Mcontrol ¼ 5.28, SDcontrol ¼ 1.30, F(1, 402)
(a ¼ 0.98) as in study 1A, except replacing the word mug
< 1). Figure 3 shows participants’ self-esteem across the
with cellphone.
ownership and product feature conditions.
We averaged participants’ responses to the brief proso-
Results and Discussion cial scenarios and used this as a measure of their prosocial
We successfully manipulated psychological ownership; tendency. An analysis of variance shows a significant in-
participants in the owner condition reported feeling greater teraction between ownership and product features on pro-
psychological ownership of the cellphone (M ¼ 5.79, SD ¼ social tendency (F(1, 402) ¼ 4.95, p ¼ .027, partial-g2 ¼
1.21) as compared to those in the control condition 0.012). The main effect of ownership and the main effect
(M ¼ 3.63, SD ¼ 2.13; F(1, 402) ¼ 163.2, p < .001, par- of product features were not significant (F < 1). Pairwise
tial-g2 ¼ 0.29). Moreover, we found a main effect of prod- comparisons between the owner and the control condi-
uct features on psychological ownership. Accordingly, tions show a marginal effect of ownership on prosocial
participants in the positive product feature condition tendency in the positive product feature condition (Mowner
reported feeling greater psychological ownership of the ¼ 3.58, SDowner ¼ 0.56, Mcontrol ¼ 3.44, SDcontrol ¼ 0.58,
FIGURE 4 behavior when people were presented with an opportunity

to help. Moreover, a temporary boost to one’s self-esteem
PARTICIPANTS’ PROSOCIAL TENDENCY AS A FUNCTION OF mediated the relationship between ownership and prosocial
OWNERSHIP CONDITION AND PRODUCT FEATURES. ERROR behavior. We also examined materialism and mine-me sen-
BARS REPRESENT 95% CONFIDENCE INTERVALS OF THE
MEAN sitivity as individual differences moderating the effect of
ownership on prosocial behavior, showing that our pro-
Prosocial posed effect did not hold for individuals low on material-
Tendency
ism or low on mine-me sensitivity. We attenuated the
4
3.9
effect of ownership on prosocial tendency by making the
3.8 negative attributes of one’s possessions relevant. We find

3.7 support for our hypotheses using a variety of manipulations
3.6 of psychological ownership: touching one’s possession
3.5 (studies 1A, 4, and 5), writing about ownership experiences
3.4 (studies 2 and 3), customizing a product (study 1B), and
3.3
imaginary ownership of a product (study 6). Furthermore,
3.2
3.1
we used a range of behavioral outcomes, such as intention
3 to act prosocially (studies 3 and 6), donation to a charity
Negative Positive (study 1B), and helping others (studies 1A, 4, and 5).
Product Features Finally, we collected data for our studies using different
Owner Control
sample populations, from students in US universities to on-
line panels of adults.
Presented with the results of this research, one may
question whether people with more possessions or more
F(1, 402) ¼ 3.33, p ¼ .069, partial-g2 ¼ 0.008). valuable possessions (wealthier) are necessarily likely to
However, the effect of ownership on prosocial tendency engage in more prosocial behaviors. As highlighted in the
is not significant in the negative product feature condition theoretical background, we focus on psychological owner-
(Mowner ¼ 3.43, SDowner ¼ 0.49, Mcontrol ¼ 3.53, SDcontrol ship as the result of consideration and deliberation on one’s
¼ 0.50, F(1, 402) ¼ 1.74, p ¼ .19). Figure 4 shows partic- possession(s). Hence, it does not necessarily hold that hav-
ipants’ prosocial tendency across ownership and product ing more possessions or more valuable possessions enhan-
feature conditions. ces one’s deliberation on their possessions. Having more
Next, we ran a moderated mediation analysis using the possessions could reflect one’s materialistic disposition
bootstrapping approach (model 7) (Hayes 2018) with 10,000 and/or higher need for material goods. Research has shown
iterations to examine whether self-esteem explains the inter- that self-esteem has an inverse relationship with the mate-
action between ownership and product features on partici- rial goods one needs (Jackson 1979) and that materialistic
pants’ prosocial tendency. The results show an indirect effect people have a lower tendency toward prosocial behaviors
of ownership through self-esteem on prosocial tendency for (Belk 1985; Belk and Austin 1986; Richins and Dawson
the positive product feature condition (indirect effect ¼ 1992). Considering the role of possessions in defining
0.027; 95% bias-corrected confidence interval ¼ [0.002, one’s identity, more possessions are involved in shaping
0.066]). However, self-esteem does not mediate the effect of the identity of a person who owns more; thus, the link be-
ownership on prosocial tendency in the negative product fea- tween a single possession and the self could be weaker for
people with many rather than few possessions. As a result,
ture condition (indirect effect ¼ 0.003; 95% bias-corrected
thinking about a possession could have a weaker impact on
confidence interval ¼ [0.025, 0.015]). The analysis also
self-esteem when people have many possessions. Past re-
confirms mediation, given that, after including self-esteem,
search has also shown that the monetary value of a posses-
the direct effect of ownership on prosocial tendency is not
sion does not affect the link between the possession and
significant (direct effect ¼ 0.007, t(403) ¼ 0.13, p ¼ .90). In
the self (Ferraro et al. 2011).
sum, the results of this study confirm that ownership does
not lead to prosocial behavior when the negative attributes of
Theoretical Contributions and Practical
one’s possessions are made relevant, and this effect is driven
by the lack of a boost in one’s self-esteem. Implications
Our results make several contributions to the existing lit-
GENERAL DISCUSSION erature on ownership. Most prior work has focused exclu-
sively on the consequences of ownership for a target entity.
Across seven studies, we found that psychological own- Literature on consumer behavior and psychological re-
ership led to a greater likelihood of engaging in prosocial search on the endowment effect show that people value an
object more if they feel they own it (Beggan 1992; possessions, moderate the effect of psychological owner-
Dommer and Swaminathan 2013; Peck and Shu 2009). ship on helping. That is, the effect does not hold for indi-
Despite the insights this line of work has provided, there viduals low on materialism or low on mine-me sensitivity,
has been limited research on the effects of ownership on since these individuals do not rely on their possessions to
behaviors beyond those directed toward target possessions, perceive happiness, judge success, or define themselves.
and scholars have called for more research on the behav- Empirical support for the moderating role of materialism
ioral consequences of psychological ownership (Peck and provides further evidence for self-esteem as the underlying
Luangrath 2018). Extending previous work, we focused on mechanism, since materialism negatively correlates with
how psychological ownership affects individuals’ self- self-esteem.
esteem and prosocial behavior. We proposed and found Our work also contributes to a growing body of research

that the experience of psychological ownership made peo- addressing how, when, and why people engage in prosocial
ple more inclined to engage in prosocial behaviors toward behavior (Penner et al. 2005). This type of behavior
beneficiaries other than the targets of ownership. Using encompasses a broad range of actions intended to benefit
multiple inductions of ownership and multiple measures of others, such as helping and cooperating. While past studies
prosocial behavior, we provided support for the hypothesis have identified a number of dispositional and situational
that psychological ownership increases prosocial behavior. factors that drive prosocial behavior (Batson and Powell
These findings provide the basis for a broader understand- 2003), examination of the role of psychological ownership
ing of the role of ownership on cognition and behavior. in this domain is, at best, at its very early stages (Dickert,
Our research also identifies the mechanism by which own- Ashby, and Dickert 2018). Our work is one of the first
ership increases prosocial behavior. We demonstrate that projects to provide insights into how psychological owner-
feelings of ownership enhance people’s self-esteem and re- ship affects prosocial behavior, and it presents self-esteem
sult in greater helping behavior. Moreover, we shed light as the mechanism connecting the two.
on the connections between ownership and self-esteem, This work also has important practical implications. Past
emphasizing the role of possessions’ benefits and their pos- research has recognized a vicious cycle between material-
itive attributes in boosting self-esteem. In brief, our re- ism and loneliness in which materialism enhances loneli-
search contributes to an understanding of ownership by ness and loneliness promotes materialistic values (Pieters
broadening its application to accompanying psychological 2013). Our findings suggest a mechanism for breaking this
states and consequences. vicious cycle: activating a sense of psychological owner-
Research has put forward two contrasting perspectives ship. We show that psychological ownership pushes people
on possessions. On the one hand, studies on materialism to be more prosocial, which can reduce loneliness with the
(Chang and Arkin 2002; Chaplin and John 2007; Richins social bonds they build when they engage in prosocial
and Dawson 1992) have found that lower levels of self- behaviors. Breaking the vicious cycle between materialism
esteem are linked with higher levels of materialism, sup- and loneliness can be expected to improve consumers’
porting the notion that “possessions are merely a crutch to well-being.
shore up weak or sagging personalities” (Belk 1988, 159). Businesses can also benefit from this work. Research
On the other hand, when incorporated into the extended has recognized three routes to psychological ownership:
self, possessions can serve valuable functions for healthy exercise of control, intimate knowing, and investment of
personalities, such as providing meaning in life (Belk the self (Pierce and Peck 2018). Practitioners can rely on
1988). Regardless of whether possessions are adaptive or these routes to enhance psychological ownership. For in-
maladaptive to our well-being, they are a central facet of stance, retailers can enhance psychological ownership by
contemporary life; as such, understanding the wider conse- encouraging consumers to touch products or letting them
quences of psychological ownership, especially its positive customize goods and/or services they acquire. The benefits
consequences, is critical. We rely on a psychological per- of such experience can be employed in service-oriented
spective of ownership and focus on the affective and cogni- businesses (e.g., amusement parks, sports arenas, movie
tive immediate effects of ownership. Despite the expected theaters, airlines, education institutions) that rely on exten-
differences in baseline helping behavior based on individ- sive interactions among consumers or between customers
ual differences in the strength of material values, we argue and employees. Our findings show that experiencing psy-
and find that ownership, by temporarily boosting one’s chological ownership enhances prosocial tendencies in
self-esteem, encourages people—particularly those with consumers, which can enhance the way they behave toward
strong materialistic orientations—to engage in prosocial others. As a result, interactions among consumers or be-
behavior. Our research adds to the limited body of research tween customers and employees could improve, leading to
on the potential positive effects of possessions. a superior service experience and higher satisfaction. For
We found that materialism (Richins and Dawson 1992) example, in study 3, we show that enhanced feelings of
and mine-me sensitivity (Weiss and Johar 2013), two indi- ownership improve people’s behavioral intentions toward
vidual differences directly linked to the importance of another customer in a retail setting. In addition,
philanthropic institutions can increase people’s contribu- bypassing the need for internal self-evaluation and self-
tions to their prosocial causes by enhancing a sense of psy- examination, and lowering the likelihood of further posi-
chological ownership—for instance, by framing their tive actions. This is a compensatory process wherein
message to enhance psychological ownership. increases in self-esteem lower subsequent helping behav-
It is important to note that psychological ownership can ior. We acknowledge this possibility and believe that there
also increase the likelihood of territorial behaviors when could be situations where a boost in self-esteem could lead
people feel their ownership over a target is threatened to compensatory behaviors; however, in the context of psy-
(Kirk et al. 2018). Hence, practitioners should be cautious chological ownership increasing self-esteem, we consis-
of consumers’ perception of infringement to minimize their tently find a positive effect on subsequent helping
potential territorial backlash and maximize the positive behavior. Future studies should fully examine the direct

impacts of ownership. We believe that consumers are less link between levels of self-esteem and temporary changes
likely to perceive infringement in service domains because to self-esteem on subsequent prosociality to identify
they are commonly aware and acknowledge the collective boundary conditions.
ownership over service experiences. Lastly, it would be worthwhile to explore the long-term
effects of psychological ownership beyond the short-term
Limitations and Directions for Future Research effects we studied. In our studies, opportunities to help oc-
curred just a few minutes after the experience of owner-
Any conclusions drawn from the results should account
ship. Thus, it is unclear whether a longer delay would
for the limitations of our studies and boundary conditions.
weaken or even eliminate the effect of ownership on proso-
First, our studies were limited to the cultural context of the
cial behavior. Future work is needed to examine the long-
United States; caveats about potential cultural differences
term effects of psychological ownership in much greater
should be considered, especially since, thus far, scholars
detail.
have focused primarily on psychological ownership in
Western cultures (Pierce and Jussila 2011). Although own-
ership and possessions are used widely in everyday conver- DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION
sation across societies, future research could investigate
The second author supervised the collection of data for
psychological ownership in other cultures.
study 1A by research assistants and staff at Harvard
Although we provided evidence for state self-esteem as
Business School Research Lab in November 2014. The
the primary psychological mechanism underpinning our
second author analyzed the data. The first author collected
results and examined affective responses, general self-
and analyzed the data for studies 1B, 2, and 3 using
efficacy, power, feeling well-off, and reciprocity as possi-
Amazon Mechanical Turk workers. Study 1B was con-
ble mechanisms, further research should explore other po-
ducted in May 2020, study 2 was conducted in March
tential mechanisms. Future research could also explore the
2018, and study 3 was conducted in April 2018. The sec-
context of ownership, which is likely to be an important
ond and third authors supervised the collection of data for
factor in determining whether individuals exhibit prosocial
studies 4 and 5 by research assistants and staff at Harvard
behavior. Prior research has demonstrated that feelings of
Business School Research Lab in October 2016. The first
ownership toward an entity (e.g., one’s projects or ideas)
and second authors analyzed the data for these studies. The
may increase possessive behavior, such as territoriality
(Baer and Brown 2012). As such, we expect that owners first and second authors collected the data for study 6 in
who prioritize protecting their target entity would not help April 2019 using Amazon Mechanical Turk workers. The
others if doing so would require them to relinquish some of first author analyzed these data.
their responsibilities or control over their possessions.
Similarly, a highly valued resource may lead to strong feel- REFERENCES
ings of entitlement or possessiveness, which in turn could
Adler, Alfred (1930), “Individual Psychology,” in Psychologies of
decrease prosocial behavior. 1930, ed. Carl Murchison, Worcester, MA: Clark University
To explain the effect of enhanced self-esteem on proso- Press.
cial behavior, relying on self-esteem theories, we argued Allport, Gordon W. (1937), Personality: A Psychological
and showed that a boost in self-esteem motivates people to Interpretation, New York: Henry Holt.
act to maintain the boosted self-esteem by engaging in pro- Anderson, Cameron, and Adam D. Galinsky (2006), “Power,
social behavior. However, there is a competing theory in Optimism, and Risk-Taking,” European Journal of Social
literature with an opposite prediction. Specifically, self- Psychology, 36 (4), 511–36.
Anderson, Cameron, Oliver P. John, and Dacher Keltner (2012),
regulation theories (Carver and Scheier 1981; Miller, “The Personal Sense of Power,” Journal of Personality, 80
Galanter, and Pribram 1960) suggest that goal progress (2), 313–44.
(enhanced self-esteem and feeling satisfied with oneself in Aronson, Elliot, and Neal Osherow (1980), “Cooperation,
this case) will lessen self-regulatory concerns, thus Prosocial Behavior, and Academic Performance:
Experiments in the Desegregated Classroom,” Applied Social Ferraro, Rosellina, Jennifer Edson Escalas, and James R. Bettman
Psychology Annual, 1, 163–96. (2011), “Our Possessions, Our Selves: Domains of Self-
Baer, Markus, and Graham Brown (2012), “Blind in One Eye: Worth and the Possession–Self Link,” Journal of Consumer
How Psychological Ownership of Ideas Affects the Types of Psychology, 21 (2), 169–77.
Suggestions People Adopt,” Organizational Behavior and Graf, Richard G. (1971), “Induced Self-Esteem as a Determinant
Human Decision Processes, 118 (1), 60–71. of Behavior,” The Journal of Social Psychology, 85 (2),
Bandura, Albert (1977), “Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying 213–7.
Theory of Behavioral Change,” Psychological Review, 84 Greenberg, Jeff (2008), “Understanding the Vital Human Quest
(2), 191–215. for Self-Esteem,” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3
Batson, C. Daniel and Adam A. Powell (2003), “Altruism and (1), 48–55.
Prosocial Behavior,” in Handbook of Psychology, Vol. 5, ed. Hatfield, Elaine, Mary K. Utne, and Jane Traupmann (1979),

Theodore Millon and Melvin J. Lerner, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, “Equity Theory and Intimate Relationships,” in Social
463–84. Exchange in Developing Relationships, ed. Robert L.
Beggan, James K. (1992), “On the Social Nature of Nonsocial Burgess and Ted L. Huston, NY: Academic Press, 99–134.
Perception: The Mere Ownership Effect,” Journal of Hayes, Andrew F. (2018), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation,
Personality and Social Psychology, 62 (2), 229–37. and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based
Belk, Russell W. (1983), “Worldly Possessions: Issues and Approach, 2nd ed., New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Criticisms,” Advances in Consumer Research, 10, 514–9. Heatherton, Todd F., and Janet Polivy (1991), “Development and
——— (1985), “Materialism: Trait Aspects of Living in the Validation of a Scale for Measuring State Self-Esteem,”
Material World,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (3), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60 (6), 895–910.
265–80. Isen, Alice M., and Paula F. Levin (1972), “Effect of Feeling
——— (1988), “Possessions and the Extended Self,” Journal of Good on Helping: Cookies and Kindness,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 15 (2), 139–68. Personality and Social Psychology, 21 (3), 384–8.
Belk, Russell W. and Mark Austin (1986), “Organ Donation Jackson, Robert L. (1979), “Material Good Need Fulfillment as a
Willingness as a Function of Extended Self and Correlate of Self-Esteem,” The Journal of Social Psychology,
Materialism,” in Advances in Health Care Research, ed. M. 108 (1), 139–40.
Venkatesan and Wade Lancaster, Toledo, OH: Association James, William (1890), The Principles of Psychology, New York:
for Health Care, 84–8. Henry Holt.
Burroughs, James E., and Aric Rindfleisch (2002), “Materialism Jones, Stephen C. (1973), “Self- and Interpersonal Evaluations:
and Well-Being: A Conflicting Values Perspective,” Journal
Esteem Theories versus Consistency Theories,”
of Consumer Research, 29 (3), 348–70.
Psychological Bulletin, 79 (3), 185–99.
Carver, Charles S. and Michael F. Scheier (1981), Attention and
Kirk, Colleen P., Joann Peck, and Scott D. Swain (2018),
Self-Regulation: A Control-Theory Approach to Human
“Property Lines in the Mind: Consumers’ Psychological
Behavior, New York: Springer.
Ownership and Their Territorial Responses,” Journal of
Chang, LinChiat, and Robert M. Arkin (2002), “Materialism as an
Attempt to Cope with Uncertainty,” Psychology and Consumer Research, 45 (1), 148–68.
Marketing, 19 (5), 389–406. Klein, Nadav, Igor Grossman, Ayse K. Uskul, Alexandra Kraus,
Chaplin, Lan Nguyen, and Deborah Roedder John (2007), and Nicolas Epley (2015), “It Pays to Be Nice, but Not Really
“Growing up in a Material World: Age Differences in Nice: Asymmetric Reputations from Prosociality across 7
Materialism in Children and Adolescents,” Journal of Countries,” Judgment and Decision Making, 10, 355–64.
Consumer Research, 34 (4), 480–93. Leary, Mark R. (2005), “Sociometer Theory and the Pursuit of
Chen, Gilad, Stanley M. Gully, and Dov Eden (2001), “Validation Relational Value: Getting to the Root of Self-Esteem,”
of a New General Self-Efficacy Scale,” Organizational European Review of Social Psychology, 16 (1), 75–111.
Research Methods, 4 (1), 62–83. Leary, Mark R. and Roy F. Baumeister (2000), “The Nature and
Crocker, Jennifer, and Connie T. Wolfe (2001), “Contingencies of Function of Self-Esteem: Sociometer Theory,” in Advances in
Self-Worth,” Psychological Review, 108 (3), 593–623. Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 32, Academic Press, 1–62.
DeCelles, Katherine A., D. Scott DeRue, Joshua D. Margolis, and Liang, Yuan, Li Liu, Xuyun Tan, Zhenwei Huang, Jianning Dang,
Tara L. Ceranic (2012), “Does Power Corrupt or Enable? and Wenwen Zheng (2016), “The Effect of Self-Esteem on
When and Why Power Facilitates Self-Interested Behavior,” Corrupt Intention: The Mediating Role of Materialism,”
Journal of Applied Psychology, 97 (3), 681–9. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1063.
Dickert, Stephan, Nathaniel J. S. Ashby, and Andreas Dickert Mead, George H. (1934), Mind, Self, and Society, Chicago:
(2018), “Trading under the Influence: The Effects of University of Chicago Press.
Psychological Ownership on Economic Decision-Making,” Miller, George A., Eugene Galanter, and Karl H. Pribram (1960),
in Psychological Ownership and Consumer Behavior, ed. Plans and the Structure of Behavior, New York: Holt,
Joann Peck and Suzanne B. Shu, Cham, Switzerland: Rinehart, and Winston.
Springer, 145–63. Morewedge, Carey K., Lisa L. Shu, Daniel T. Gilbert, and
Dittmar, Helga (1992), The Social Psychology of Material Timothy D. Wilson (2009), “Bad Riddance or Good
Possessions: To Have Is to Be, New York, NY: St. Martin’s Rubbish? Ownership and Not Loss Aversion Causes the
Press. Endowment Effect,” Journal of Experimental Social
Dommer, Sara Loughran, and Vanitha Swaminathan (2013), Psychology, 45 (4), 947–51.
“Explaining the Endowment Effect through Ownership: The Peck, Joann and Andrea Webb Luangrath (2018), “Looking
Role of Identity, Gender, and Self-Threat,” Journal of Ahead: Future Research in Psychological Ownership,” in
Consumer Research, 39 (5), 1034–50. Psychological Ownership and Consumer Behavior, ed. Joann
Peck and Suzanne B. Shu, Cham, Switzerland: Springer, Rosenberg, Morris (1979), Conceiving the Self, New York: Basic
239–58. Books.
Peck, Joann, and Suzanne B. Shu (2009), “The Effect of Mere Rucker, Derek D., David Dubois, and Adam D. Galinsky (2011),
Touch on Perceived Ownership,” Journal of Consumer “Generous Paupers and Stingy Princes: Power Drives
Research, 36 (3), 434–47. Consumer Spending on Self versus Others,” Journal of
——— (2018), Psychological Ownership and Consumer Behavior, Consumer Research, 37 (6), 1015–29.
Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Shu, Suzanne B., and Joann Peck (2011), “Psychological
Penner, Louis A., John F. Dovidio, Jane A. Piliavin, and David A. Ownership and Affective Reaction: Emotional Attachment
Schroeder (2005), “Prosocial Behavior: Multilevel Process Variables and the Endowment Effect,” Journal of
Perspectives,” Annual Review of Psychology, 56 (1), 365–92. Consumer Psychology, 21 (4), 439–52.
Pierce, Jon L. and Iiro Jussila (2011), Psychological Ownership Snyder, Mark and Patrick C. Dwyer (2012), “Altruism and
and the Organizational Context: Theory, Research Evidence, Prosocial Behavior,” in Handbook of Psychology Volume 5:

and Application, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Personality and Social Psychology, ed. Irving B. Weiner,
Pierce, Jon L. and Joann Peck (2018), “The History of Howard A. Tennen, and Jerry M. Suls, 2nd ed., Hoboken, NJ:
Psychological Ownership and Its Emergence in Consumer Wiley, 467–85.
Psychology,” in Psychological Ownership and Consumer Spiller, Stephen A., Gavan J. Fitzsimons, John G. Lynch, and
Behavior, ed. Joann Peck and Suzanne B. Shu, Cham: Gary H. McClelland (2013), “Spotlights, Floodlights, and the
Springer, 1–18. Magic Number Zero: Simple Effects Tests in Moderated
Pierce, Jon L., Tatiana Kostova, and Kurt T. Dirks (2003), “The Regression,” Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (2), 277–88.
State of Psychological Ownership: Integrating and Extending Toure-Tillery, Maferima, and Alysson E. Light (2018), “No Self
a Century of Research,” Review of General Psychology, 7 to Spare: How the Cognitive Structure of the Self Influences
(1), 84–107. Moral Behavior,” Organizational Behavior and Human
Pieters, Rik (2013), “Bidirectional Dynamics of Materialism and Decision Processes, 147, 48–64.
Loneliness: Not Just a Vicious Cycle,” Journal of Consumer Van Dyne, Linn, and Jon L. Pierce (2004), “Psychological
Research, 40 (4), 615–31. Ownership and Feelings of Possession: Three Field Studies
Quiles, Zandra N., and Jane Bybee (1997), “Chronic and Predicting Employee Attitudes and Organizational
Predispositional Guilt: Relations to Mental Health, Prosocial Citizenship Behavior,” Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Behavior, and Religiosity,” Journal of Personality 25 (4), 439–59.
Assessment, 69 (1), 104–26. Watson, David, Lee A. Clark, and Auke Tellegen (1988),
Richins, Marsha L. (2002), “Possessions, Materialism, and Other- “Development and Validation of Brief Measures of Positive
Directedness in the Expression of Self,” in Consumer Value: and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales,” Journal of
A Framework for Analysis and Research, ed. Morris B. Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (6), 1063–70.
Holbrook, New York: Routledge, 85–104. Weiss, Liad, and Gita V. Johar (2013), “Egocentric Categorization
——— (2004), “The Material Values Scale: Measurement and Product Judgment: Seeing Your Traits in What You Own
Properties and Development of a Short Form,” Journal of (and Their Opposite in What You Don’t),” Journal of
Consumer Research, 31 (1), 209–19. Consumer Research, 40 (1), 185–201.
Richins, Marsha L., and Scott Dawson (1992), “A Consumer ——— (2016), “Products as Self-Evaluation Standards: When
Values Orientation for Materialism and Its Measurement: Owned and Unowned Products Have opposite Effects on
Scale Development and Validation,” Journal of Consumer Self-Judgment,” Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (6),
Research, 19 (3), 303–16. 915–30.
© 2021 Journal of Consumer Research Inc. Copyright of Journal of Consumer Research is the
property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Jami A. Kouchaki M. & Gino F. (2021) - I Own So I Help Out

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Jami A. Kouchaki M. & Gino F. (2021) - I Own So I Help Out

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jami A. Kouchaki M. & Gino F. (2021) - I Own So I Help Out

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

I Own, So I Help Out: How Psychological

Ownership Increases Prosocial Behavior

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/47/5/698/5873875 by 81695661, OUP on 27 January 2021

This article explores the consequences of psychological ownership going beyond

Keywords: psychological ownership, prosocial behavior, altruism, possessions,

O wnership is an important facet of people’s lives:

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/47/5/698/5873875 by 81695661, OUP on 27 January 2021

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/47/5/698/5873875 by 81695661, OUP on 27 January 2021

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/47/5/698/5873875 by 81695661, OUP on 27 January 2021

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/47/5/698/5873875 by 81695661, OUP on 27 January 2021

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/47/5/698/5873875 by 81695661, OUP on 27 January 2021

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/47/5/698/5873875 by 81695661, OUP on 27 January 2021

CORRELATION BETWEEN VARIABLES IN STUDY 2—TIME 1

Self-efficacy Power Being well-off (Hatfield) Being well-off

Self-esteem 0.70*** 0.59*** 0.42*** 0.34***

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/47/5/698/5873875 by 81695661, OUP on 27 January 2021

CORRELATION BETWEEN VARIABLES IN STUDY 2—TIME 2

Self-esteem 0.73*** 0.62*** 0.44*** 0.48*** 0.22** 0.53*** 0.68***

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/47/5/698/5873875 by 81695661, OUP on 27 January 2021

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/47/5/698/5873875 by 81695661, OUP on 27 January 2021

FIGURE 1 consider or do not consider objects as part of the self, re-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/47/5/698/5873875 by 81695661, OUP on 27 January 2021

Results and Discussion FIGURE 2

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/47/5/698/5873875 by 81695661, OUP on 27 January 2021

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/47/5/698/5873875 by 81695661, OUP on 27 January 2021

FIGURE 4 behavior when people were presented with an opportunity

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/47/5/698/5873875 by 81695661, OUP on 27 January 2021

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/47/5/698/5873875 by 81695661, OUP on 27 January 2021

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/47/5/698/5873875 by 81695661, OUP on 27 January 2021

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/47/5/698/5873875 by 81695661, OUP on 27 January 2021

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/47/5/698/5873875 by 81695661, OUP on 27 January 2021

You might also like

Self-esteem 0.70* 0.59* 0.42* 0.34*

Self-esteem 0.73* 0.62* 0.44* 0.48* 0.22 0.53* 0.68***